Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Don't sigh! That's our "blessed hope"!We are in the last days.
I say it'll get even stronger and culminate during the Tribulation.The ToE will self-destruct eventually. It's just a matter of time.
If you can't look around and see evolution clashing with creationism and causing consternation, it's definitely myopia.If a scientific theory causes you anxiety and dismay, the problem isn't the theory. It's definitely a 'you' problem.
I'm seeing assertions about the inability of the evolutionary process to produce change. Mutations trivially demonstrate that this is false.Yes you are correct, they were already present which means that I used a bad example, my mistake. But nothing changes, since I can use only Cambrian animals to demonstrate that science contradicts the theory of evolution with regard to the creation powers of the evolution process.
These are not issues with the OP. These are issues with your beliefs about the enormous creation powers of the evolution process. The OP simply demonstrates what creation powers the evolution process should have had to account for the enormous novelty over a relatively short geologic time span(early Cambrian). Then it demonstrates that scientifically, the creation powers of the evolution process are zero. And the reason for the powerlessness of this process is simple. Namely, the evolution process boils down to what all natural processes boil down to: CHANGE. Or more specifically: interactions of forces and particles. These interactions happen constantly in both living and nonliving systems, but they don't produce new functional things. They don't produce new systems with logically connected, interrelated and interdependent parts, such as cars or organs. And the reason for that is also simple: the number of interactions outcomes that are biologically (mechanically) non-functional versus those that are functional is so huge that even if the interactions continue until the heat death of the universe (in 10^100 years) no new and distinct biologically (mechanically) functional outcome will emerge. So, that is the reason why the scientific method of experimentation and observation shows the complete powerlessness of natural processes (including evolution) to create new functional things. Your car, for example, is nothing but some specific arrangement of particles. And although nature is capable to rearrange particles and generate specific arrangement of particles no rational person would claim that nature can create a car. That is why we, rational people, claim that, although natural process of evolution is capable to rearrange particles and generate specific arrangement of particles (CHANGE) it cannot produce heart, kidney or wing. Experimental science repeatedly demonstrated that we are right.
But nothing changes, since I can use only Cambrian animals to demonstrate that science contradicts the theory of evolution with regard to the creation powers of the evolution process.
The OP simply demonstrates what creation powers the evolution process should have had to account for the enormous novelty over a relatively short geologic time span(early Cambrian)
Okay, maybe you can try to respond without simplistic insults.It seems that you are hallucinating. If you see things that are not there this is called hallucination. To know whether you are hallucinating, you can ask the people around you if they see the same thing. My statement about te inability of the evolutionary process to produce change is non existent. Moreover this is the quote from my last post: "..., the evolution process boils down to what all natural processes boil down to: CHANGE. " Hence, you have problems with perception of reality and you see things that are not there.
I am not making unsubstantiated assertions.
I am stating facts derived from scientific observation: the evolutionary process is powerless in creating new functional things.
On the other hand, I use Cambrian simply to demonstrate what creation powers the evolution process should have had to account for the enormous novelty over a relatively short geologic time span.
Finally, I provide logical explanation of why we observe powerlessness of this process. So, no assumptions, no assertions, no opinions. Just facts and logic.
Oh it's easily understandable. You're just seeing something in it that isn't there.
You've also never once shown complexity or design.
It's been over 150 years...
You are just making up stories.
How do you know it's improbable, let alone impossible?
Feel free to say that you believe it from a gut feeling, or as they say "personal incredulity", but if you think that's anything like a probability calculation or science, then you are talking nonsense.
I'm seeing assertions about the inability of the evolutionary process to produce change. Mutations trivially demonstrate that this is false.
Even over the course of human history we can see that mutations isolated and bred for in domestic plant and animals.
There's no such thing as a fox terrier or a corn cob in the natural world.
Of what, exactly?
I don't need them. I'm not claiming that it's impossible.Let's have your calculations.
No such odds exist.The odds against evolution.
Selective breeding is very rarely considered natural selection.Wait a minute! Evolution is 'natural' but cross breeding by man isn't? Evolution claims to have produced more goofy critters than we ever could.
So what you want, then, is the probability that each new generation of a species will present a randomly distributed range of variants to the environment for selection, and that at least some of those variants will be equal or better in their ability to survive than those of the previous generation.The odds against evolution.
So what you want, then, is the probability that each new generation of a species will present a randomly distributed range of variants to the environment for selection, and that at least some of those variants will equal or better in their ability to survive than those of the previous generation.
So what you want is the probability that those variants which are equal or better in their ability to survive than the previous generation will be more complex than the previous generation as well. They are all dissimilar. That's why they are called variants.Not quite. I want to know the odds of a simple organism giving rise to a complex organism, or a variety of dissimilar complex organisms.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?